By putting "Islamic" in quotes the OP shows that she's consciously aware of her choice of words.Would the post be just as "appealing" if she had written "Muslim terrorists"?If she really wanted to go all-out with her doublespeak, she should have used "Islamic extremists" or "Islamic fundamentalists".Additionally, using one of those "kinder" terms would also have made her "apples and oranges" comparison a little more "kosher".

### Notice how she uses "Muslims" and "most Christians".

"Muslims", without any quantifying adjective is all-encompassing, i.e. "All Muslims".Yet she only credits "most Christians".Do you see the implication here? E.g.:"All Muslims get it, and most Christians get it."

### "'Islamic' terrorists ... [vs] ... Westboro Baptist Church"Using the analogy form "A is to B as C is to D", this reads:Muslim terrorists are to MuslimsasWestboro Baptist Church are to most Christians

This isn't semantically/logically/necessarilly an "apples and oranges" comparison, but that really depends on the answer to these questions:

* Does this mean that Muslims only feel threatened/hurt by Muslim terrorists' actions in the same degree as Christians feel threatened/hurt by Westboro Baptist Church members' actions?

* Do Muslims see the Westboro Baptist Church the same way "most Christians" see "Muslim terrorists"?

The implication can be demonstrated like this:

(NEWS HEADLINE: Muslim terrorists just did another suicide bombing killing other innocent Muslim children.)Muslim: God! They are so rude and annoying!

(NEWS HEADLINE: WBC members just demonstrated at a homosexual's funeral, yelling things like "God hates fags!")Christian: God! They are so rude and annoying!

Is this what the OP meant?

###

Here's a proper doublespeak version (what the OP should have written, to avoid negative reactions as much as possible):"Most Muslims dislike Islamic extremists like most Christians dislike the Westboro Baptist Church..."

And here's a fair, "matter-of-fact" version:"Most Muslims dislike Muslim terrorists like most Christians dislike the Westboro Baptist Church demonstrators..."

If one of the defining results of cannabis use is the happy, relaxed, care-free mentality of "fuck it", you'd think every politician would b fighting as hard as possible to legalize it--seriously, think how much shit they'd get away with "leading" an entire population of "fuck its"... but really, politicians should be giving it away and even teaching people how to smoke it. or at least setting the age restriction for cannabis use to at least as low as 18--the age requirement for voting in Norway

Wednesday, 24 October 2012

things that help against stress:
workout
difficult bc to find the time, but i work out about every other day
masturbation
helps only a little while, can't do it too often
cannabis
illegal, can't work while high, danger for developing psychosis
snus
looks stupid, tastes terrible, possibility for dependency, effect diminishes over time (you need to increase dose more and more)
meditation
difficult bc to find the time, helps only a little while, i.e. while you're meditating
"fix" what is making you stressed
takes time
talk to a pyschologist (related to "fix" entry)
expensive, takes time, long term, difficult to find the time
work/get your mind on something else
don't always have the opportunity
laughter
don't always have the opportunity
sleep
don't always have the opportunity
anti-depressant medication (e.g. cipralex)
makes me tired

things that help for sleep:
masturbation
helps only a little bit, doesn't help if i wake up again, can't do it too often
cannabis
illegal, danger for developing psychosis
melatonin
2 large pills usually works for me, doesn't help if i wake up again (but then i rarely do bc i seem to sleep harder when using melatonin)
sleep medicine
if you can get your doctor to prescribe it (mine won't)

Thursday, 13 September 2012

"In an instant, the president of Lufthansa ordered into the air his chief pilot for the 737 fleet. Thirty-three-year-old Dieter F. Uchtdorf was to take a small group of emergency personnel and follow the hijacked plane wherever the guerrillas took it. In every setting possible he was to negotiate for the release of the plane, the pilots, and the hostages. Then, when all of this had been accomplished, he was to fly the hijacked 737 back to headquarters in Frankfurt.

This text doesn't mean Uchtdorf did a damn thing. It is entirely vague. Holland claims that Uchtdorf was scheduled to follow the plane, and if possible, negotiate for the release of the pilots/hostages. Pilots aren't negotiators, they're pilots. Holland doesn't explicitly say Uchtdorf even did any of these things, just that Uchtdorf's mission "was a success".

typical, lds, out-of-context, faith-promoting bullshit story. but i'd love to hear it from the horse's mouth--interesting that Holland tells it and not Uchtdorf, don't you think?

it's also a typical "build the reputation of the person you want your believers to believe in" tactic--establish his credibility. this story by holland was published only a couple of months after uchtdorf was called as an apostle (october 2004 > march 2005).

"The commandeered jet next headed for Kuwait, where Kuwaiti authorities refused to allow it to land. Captain Kroese was ordered by the terrorists to land anyway on a secondary runway. An hour of negotiations between the Palestinian gunmen and the Kuwaiti authorities ended with the release of all twelve remaining hostages in exchange for "free passage" to an unknown destination for the hijackers."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_110#Lufthansa_hijacking

doesn't seem that Uch did any negotiating. what was his success then, flying back the hijacked plane after the terrorists left? good job ;) how faith-promoting.

Thursday, 30 August 2012

Charlotte is a Certified Physiotherapist and Inner Management Coach. As well as being extensively trained in psychotherapy, spirituality, meditation, sexuality, tantra, relationship counseling, co-dependency therapy, healing chock&trauma, body- and dancetherapy.

(emphasis added by me)

Where did she get her certification? I find it odd that she doesn't mention this, and if she has formal education, that she doesn't mention her degree. It leads one to believe that she doesn't have formal education, and that she has simply worked as an assistant to a real physical therapist, and then taken a certification exam. It implies that she does not have a Bachelor's, Masters or Doctorate degree in physical therapy.

How does being certified in physical therapy, in any way, qualify her to be giving people intimate, personal advice about their life, and charging fees equal to or greater than professionally trained psychologists?

If you google "Inner Management Coach" you'll get only 52 results, where most of them mention Charlotte Norell. Inner Management Coach seems to be something she has invented herself. It is not a formal or recognized education.